Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as

inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names

and images used in commerce.

What are intellectual property rights?
Intellectual property rights are like any other property right.They allow creators, or owners, of patents, trademarks or
copyrighted works to benefit from their own work or investment in a creation. These rights are outlined in Article 27
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for the right to benefit from the protection of moral
and material interests resulting from authorship of scientific, literary or artistic productions. The importance of
intellectual property was first recognized in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and
the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). Both treaties are administered by the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Types of IP

Patents
Patents protect what makes things work - like what makes a wheel turn or the chemical formula of your
favourite fizzy drink.
Trade marks
Trade marks are signs (like words and logos) that distinguish goods and services in the marketplace.
Designs
Designs protect the appearance of a product/logo, from the shape of an aeroplane to a fashion item
Copyright
Copyright is an automatic right which applies when the work is fixed, that is written or recorded in some way.





Introduction
The use of intellectual property (IP) is a growing concern in both the criminal and civil justice systems due to the
growing number of products that can be reproduced quickly and in expensively with little chance of detection. The
economic impact of the misuse and theft of intellectual property is far-reaching. The copying of software, movies,
video games, and music in ways that deny publishers and authors their legal rights have drawn the most attention,
but trademark and patent infringement, corporate espionage, computer intrusions, theft and sale of trade secrets,
copyright violations, and international smuggling and transmission of copyrighted materials also have been
identified as problems. The National Institute of Justice sponsored several studies to examine the nature of this
problem, to discover what is known about its extent and the major justice-related issues it creates, and to develop
recommendations for future research in this area. As part of its International Centers research agenda to enhance
understanding of intellectual property crimes (IPC) and its implications for practice, funding was provided to
analyze the current state of law and enforcement efforts for protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), and its
actual and potential uses. In essence, this study represents an assessment of the state of the art, as well as concrete
evidence of weaknesses in current law, its enforcement domestically and internationally, problems of application,
training issues, and other matters that can be used to assist Multimedia University(MMU) in its research agenda in
this untapped area by researchers. While the broader interest of this project was to examine the policy issues
associated with protection and enforcement of IPRs, the results of the current project provide a starting point for a
critical analysis of the currentstate of laws, law enforcement, and potential threats of IPC in a global context. This
study is not intended to provide solutions to all the problems that it identifies and it is my hope that the MMU
provides adequate funding and resources so that a comprehensive study in this area can be conducted.

Research Methodology
Two research methods were utilized for this study:
A. Archival Review An extensive review of federal regulations, case reports, journal articles, speeches, testimony,
arrest records, indictments, court records, GAO reports, Congressional hearings reports, agency reports, seminar
reports and newspaper articles.
B. Primary Source Interviews Interviews with selected interest groups, including corporate security professionals,
security consultants and federal prosecutors other government officials in the Department of Justice and the FBI
who play key roles in prosecution and investigation of criminal activities in this area were conducted.
The following questions were raised with officials and agencies interviewed:
1. What is IP and what are IPRs?
2. How can IP be misappropriated?
3. Does IP misappropriation constitutes a crime?
4. What law enforcement initiatives domestically and internationally have taken place?
5. Why criminalize IP violations?
6. What future research is needed in this area?

The following organizations were contacted in connection with this project:

Federal Law Enforcement Contacts
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), Department of Justice Intellectual Property Rights
Coordination Center, Financial Crimes Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation , U.S. Customs Service, Intellectual
Property Rights Program & Intellectual Property Rights Branch
Trademark Organization Contacts
United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC)
International Trademark Association (INTA)
Copyright Organization Contacts
Library of Congress Copyright Office Business Software Alliance (BSA)
Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA)
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI)
Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

What Is Intellectual Property?
IP is the term that describes the ideas, inventions, technologies, artworks, music and literature, that are intangible
when they are first created, but become valuable and tangible as they become products. The word property is used
to describe this value, because the term applies to inventions, works and names for which a person or group of
persons claims ownership. Ownership in this context is important because prospect of potential economic gain
provides a powerful incentive to innovate. IP, very broadly, means the legal rights which result from intellectual
activity in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic fields.






According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) IP shall include rights relating to the
following:
literary, artistic and scientific works,
performances of performing artists, phonograms, and
broadcasts,
inventions in all fields of human endeavor,
scientific discoveries,
industrial designs,
trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and
designations,
protection against unfair competition,
and all other rights resulting from intellectual activity
in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields.


Protectable property interests are present in both real property and IP. Real property is a commonly understood
concept; it is any physical or tangible property, such as a house, a watch, or a piece of land. IP on the other hand is
not usually something you can touch, but it exists and has the same value. Copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade
secrets are all forms of IP. IPRs refers to the legal rights that correspond to intellectual activity in the industrial,
scientific, and artistic fields. These legal rights, most commonly in the form of patents, trademarks, and copyright,
protect the moral and economic rights of the creators, in addition to the creativity and dissemination of their work.
Different Categories Of Intellectual Property
IP is divided into two categories: industrial property and copyright. Industrial property, which is part of IP, extends
protection to inventions and industrial designs. Industrial property includes patents, trademarks, industrial design,
and geographic indications of source.Whereas copyright protects literary and artistic works such as novels, poems,
plays, films, musical works,drawings, paintings, photographs, sculptures and architectural designs.

Industrial Property
Industrial property rights make it possible for the creators of innovations (goods, processes, apparatus, etc.) to
establish themselves more readily, to penetrate new markets with a minimum of risk, and to amortize the
investments made in the research that led to the innovations in the first place. In a practical sense, these innovations
become the spearhead of some of the most advanced technology. This is becoming more and more apparent in a
modern world increasingly dominated by technology.

Patent (Invention)
A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention (a product or a process that provides a new way of doing
something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem). It provides protection for the invention for a limited
period, generally 20 years from the filing date, in the country or countries in which it is patented, in exchange for the
inventors public disclosure of the invention.

Trademark
A trademark or mark is a distinctive name, logo or sign8identifying the source of goods or services. Trademarks
help consumers distinguish a product or service from one source fromthose produced by another source. A mark
provides protection to its owner by preventing confusion as to source in connection with the distribution of goods or
services or licensing others to use them. The period of protection varies, but a mark can remain valid indefinitely
through continued commercial use or a registration and renewal process.

Copyright and Related Rights
Copyright consists of a bundle of rights given to creators in their literary and artistic works. These creators, and their
heirs, hold the exclusive rights to use or license others to use the work on agreed terms. The creator of a work can
prohibit or authorize, for example:
its reproduction in various forms, such as a printed publication or a phonorecord;
its public performance, as in a play or musical work;
its broadcasting, including by radio, television, or satellite;
its translation into other languages, or its adaptation, such as the adaptation of a novel into a screenplay.

Copyright applies to many different types of artistic works, including paintings, music, poems, plays, books,
architecture and choreography, as well as to works that are generally not considered artistic such as computer
software, maps and technical drawings.
Related rights are rights that have evolved in the last 50 years or so around copyright, and include the right of a
performer in his/her performance, the right of a producer of a sound recording in the recording, and the right of a
broadcaster in a broadcast.






Intellectual Property Crimes
IPC are serious crimes in their own right, not typically because they inflict physical injury or death upon a person,
but rather because they steal a creative work from its owner. IPC refers to counterfeited and pirated goods,
manufactured and sold for profit without the consent of the patent or trademark holder.The terms piracy and
counterfeiting are often used interchangeably. However, piracy is generally related to the theft of IPRs by some
form of copying the original. Whereas, counterfeiting is the copying of a products trademark or the distinctive way
the package looks. IPC involve a wide range of criminal actors ranging from individuals to organized criminal
groups and terrorist organizations. There is now a strong belief that there is an even greater threat posed by the
organizations involved in counterfeiting and piracy. IPC includes the manufacturing, transporting, storing and sale
of counterfeit or pirated goods. Organized crime involvement in the manufacture, distribution and sale of counterfeit
and pirated merchandise is no longer denied. The link between terrorist groups and IPC is not the focus of this study,
however, the following Congressional Testimony helps illustrate the importance of this topic in the context of other
concerns with respect to IPC. Ron Noble, Interpol Secretary, gave the following testimony in July 2003:

Intellectual Property Crime is becoming the preferred method of funding for a number of terrorist groups. There are
enough examples now of the funding of terrorist groups in this way for us to worry about the threat to public safety.
Wemust take preventative measures now. In general, law enforcement does not treat IPC [Intellectual Property
Crimes] as a high priority crime. Law enforcement does not always investigate IPC cases. Investigations when
initiated often tend to be seizure-based and do not extend to following onward flows of money. Even if law
enforcement were to follow onward flows of money, given the high level of cash-based transactions involved, it is
difficult to establish with precision the end destination of the financial flows. . . . Terrorist financing is difficult to
investigate due to the complex flows of money often in cash form and often laundered. This is facilitated by
complicated associations of individuals through which the money transits before becoming available to the relevant
terrorist group. All of the above complicates establishing links between IPC and terrorist financing. Furthermore,
much of the financing is of an indirect nature and it is difficult to attribute directlinks between an individual
involved in IPC and funds remitted to a terrorist organization.


The Scope of Protection Offered by
Intellectual Property Law
Tangible Property:
Property that is real and concrete; property that can be physically touched or moved.
Intangible Property:
Property that is incapable of being perceived by the senses and incapable of being clearly
pointed to or defined. Intellectual property is a form of intangible property.
Exhaustion:
The expiration of the rights of an intellectual property holder regarding a physical
manifestation of that property (such as a book) that occurs because the holder of the
property right has placed the physical manifestation into the stream of commerce.
Public Policy:
Concerns that may be taken into account by courts in deciding a particular case that have
not been directly dealt with by a statute. Public policy can be used by a court to refuse to
apply a seemingly applicable law because it deems that the application of the law in the
particular case may have adverse social or legal consequences that outweigh the interest of
applying the law in question.
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO):
The agency in the United States Department of Commerce which provides patent and
trademark protection to inventors and businesses for their inventions and product
identification.

Intellectual property law differs from other property law in that intellectual property law
protects rights in intangible property, whereas other property law protects tangible, or
physical, property. Thus, intellectual property law deals with abstract concepts, rather than
with concrete physical objects. The physical manifestations of the work product of the
protected intellectual property may be protected by other property law, but it will not be
protected by intellectual property law. For example:
Example 1: John G. writes a novel in which four lawyers and four paralegals devise a
confidence scheme and bilk gullible clients out of 20 million dollars. One day, he accidentally
leaves the manuscript in an airport restroom, where it is promptly found by Scott. Scott
takes the manuscript home and works on it and re-types it, but has not passed the work off
as his own, distributed it or used it for commercial purposes in any way.
In the above example, since Scott has not violated any copyright laws to this point, John
has no cause of action against Scott that is based in intellectual property law. He may be
able to successfully sue Scott to re-acquire his manuscript, but that would be a matter of
personal property law, not intellectual property law.
Example 2: Three weeks later Scott decides that the story is so good it must be shared
with the world. He therefore posts the document on his website.
Because Scott has now distributed a copy of the original work, the author might have
recourse through copyright law.
Nevertheless, is must be noted that, in order for a concept or idea or work to be eligible for
intellectual property protection, it must have been committed to a physical form at some
point. The idea itself, without expression of the idea, is not protected.



Objectives
a) To protect the rights of the University, its innovators, inventors, research sponsors and the public;
b) To eliminate the infringement, improper exploitation and abuse of the University's intellectual assets belonging to
the University or the other persons;
c) To optimize the environment and incentives for research and for the creation of new knowledge;
d) To promote linkages with industry and stimulate research through developing and utilizing novel technologies and
creative works for commercialization and plough back resources the University and to the interested parties;
e) To promote creativity and innovation; and
f) To ensure fair and equitable distribution of all benefits accruing from all innovations and inventions.


Patent (Invention)

Description of Patern
A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention (a product or a process that provides a new way of doing
something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem). It provides protection for the invention for a limited
period, generally 20 years from the filing date, in the country or countries in which it is patented, in exchange for the
inventors public disclosure of the invention.
The Supreme Court thinks that if you bring a bad enough patent suit, you should have to pay for it. In a pair of
rulings handed down today, the court loosened restrictions on patent lawsuit fee-shifting, in which the losing party
must pay the winner's attorney's fees. It's a move that could make it harder for so-called "patent trolls" to bring
frivolous lawsuits, as well as the first of a number of major patent cases expected this year.
Because of the frequency and increasing visibility of patent lawsuits, particularly those involving big names like
Apple and Samsung or patent holding companies like Intellectual Ventures, the past few years have been spent
debating whether the standards for issuing patents should be tightened, and whether bringing a suit should be harder.
Though the definition of patent trolling varies, there's an undeniable subset of companies that bring lawsuits against
small businesses using broad, tangentially related, or likely invalid patents. Victims have complained that expensive,
arduous lawsuits make it cheaper to settle than to fight even an obviously bad lawsuit, and Congress is
workshopping a patent reform bill meant to ease the process.

Description of court case:-
Patent trollingthe aggressive assertion of weak or meritless patent claims by non-practicing
entitiesis a frequent target of disdain from open source enthusiasts. Thus it may be of some
comfort to readers that the highest court in the US has recently decided the issue is worth looking
into. Three cases have already been heard, but decisions are, as usual, still a ways off.
Legal fees
On February 26, 2014, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two separate cases. These
cases both focus on the grounds for awarding legal fees for victorious defendants of weak-to-
completely-baseless lawsuits for patent infringement. How the Supreme Court decides to rule in
these cases might cripple patent trolling... or it could give it a shot of adrenaline.
The issue of awarding legal fees seems like a dry, procedural matter at first glance. But, this issue is
crucial in the fight against patent trolling: if trolling means there's a good chance of losing $1-2
million (which is what legal fees can easily amount to in these types of cases, including those that
never even go past the lower courts) for each organization that decides to fight back, it can really
cripple the patent troll "business model." The profit from shaking down twenty or so companies for a
few thousand dollars, each in pre-trial settlements, pales in comparison to the millions of dollars of
losses from just one organization realizing it is threatened by a paper tiger, and fighting back. Facing
that situation, why troll for money?
The legal basis for awarding attorney fees comes from a particular section of a patent law statute:
Title 35 of the US Code, Section 285, which reads:
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) outlined a two-step test for applying Section
285 in the 2005 Brooks Furniture case [PDF]. First, if there is "some material inappropriate conduct
related to the matter in litigation" (such as unethical behavior on the part of the lawyers for a party),
then legal fees can be awarded. If there isn't such misconduct, then fees can be awarded "only if
both (1) the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless."
The two cases before the Supreme Court are arguing against the Brooks Furniture test. The first
case heard was Octane Fitness v ICON Health and Fitness [PDF]. These two competing companies
make, among other things, elliptical trainers. ICON holds patent 6019710 A on a particular
construction of elliptical trainers. ICON sued Octane for patent infringement in 2010 and lost, later
losing at the CAFC as well. On appeal, Octane, among other claims, essentially accused ICON of
trolling, and asked the CAFC to overturn the lower court's refusal to award attorney fees. The CAFC
rejected Octane's claim for fees, refusing to lower its standard for Section 285.

Octane v ICON
In the hearing for the Octane case, the oral arguments focused on defining the legal meaning of the
word "exceptional" in the context of that section. Notably, the Supreme Court judges seemed
displeased with all the arguments they heard. When Octane's counsel argued that his client should
receive legal fees according to Section 285 because ICON's claims were "unreasonably weak" and
"meritless," some of the justices seemed skeptical: they were dubious that the standard could be
applied effectively and consistently by lower courts, and that using "unreasonably weak" and
"meritless" as a standard for Section 285 would not fit better with the section's intent.
When the Assistant for the Solicitor General (acting as amicus curiae, or "friend to the court," in favor
of the petitioners views) argued that Section 285 is "to prevent gross injustice," several judges
argued that that phrase doesn't help clarify the section.After opening with a weak argument based
on First Amendment case law, ICON's counsel followed up by arguing that attorney fees should be
awarded when a claim is brought that is "objectively baseless," which was sharply criticized by
Justice Breyer. He openly mused about "send[ing] [the case] back and tell [the district court] that
they were imposing a standard that was too narrow." Justice Scalia seemed sensitive to the general
framework of patent trolling: "if the alternative for the defendant is either [...] spend $2 million
defending or pay off the $10,000 [...] that the plaintiff demands to go away, hey, that's an easy call."
The closing, rebutting remarks of Octane's counsel urged the Court not to pick an "extreme"
standard:
There is not 15 amici briefs and some of the largest technologies companies in this country before
this Court if it weren't the case that there's a problem. These are companies with a self-interest in a
strong patent system. They have patents; they sue. And yet they are here telling this Court to not
pick an extreme standard.
The amici briefs are written by the types of organizations one would expect to be interested in this
type of case. For example, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) argued that "objectively
unreasonable" should be the criteria, while the Electronic Frontier Foundation suggested that
"bring[ing] an objectively weak case or us[ing] the cost of defense as a weapon" should be the
standard. Google and thirteen other large corporations including Facebook, Netflix, Intel, HTC,
Verizon, and Cisco joined in writing one brief, which also sought to lower the standard to objectively
unreasonable but not meritless:
It should be sufficient to demonstrate that a patentee lacks an objectively reasonable prospect of
prevailing on his overall claims, even if there is some merit to certain portions of them.
Highmark v Allcare
The second case heard was Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. [PDF].
Allcare holds a software patent on a patient management system for health care organizations.
Concerned about its freedom to operate in the marketplace, Highmark initiated a proceeding for
declaratory judgment that it did not infringe that patent in 2003. Allcare fought back, claiming
Highmark infringed its patent. Highmark won at the district court leve, and got the district court judge
to order Allcare to pay Highmark for its costs and legal fees. On appeal, the CAFC refused Allcare's
request to overturn the district court judges ruling on costs and legal fees.
The oral argument for the Highmark case concerned the extent to which appeals courts should
respect the right of district court judges to use their discretion in making a determination of an
"exceptional" case (and therefore the extent to which those determinations cannot be overturned on
appeal). Again, this seems like just a procedural issue on its face. However, if a patent troll loses a
case in the lower courts, is forced to pay attorneys fees, but has a chance to have the attorney fees
sanction lifted on appeal, then the patent troll poses a more menacing threat to those companies
willing to fight back against a troll. A victory at the district court level would seem hollow if years of
appellate litigation could follow. Cutting off the ability of appellate courts to overturn a Section 285
finding could cripple patent trolls after a loss at the first trial.
None of the lawyers arguing this case fared well in front of the court either. Highmark's counsel
started the session by accusing the CAFC of not properly respecting the Supreme Court's rulings on
awarding attorney's fees. Counsel argued that lower courts' decisions to grant attorneys fees should
be almost always upheld on appeal. Justice Ginsburg raised the concern that allowing this much
discretion risks major discrepancies in the awards district courts give; counsel countered that
because district courts look at the entirety of cases, rather than appeals courts, which often look only
at "one piece of it," they have a better sense of what's "exceptional" than appeals courts, so there
would not be major discrepancies. The strongest part of Highmark's argument was its criticism of the
"objective baselessness" criterion for the Section 285 test; according to Highmark, "exceptional"
requires a fact-based approach, but never a purely legal examination of the merits of the patent suit.
The Assistant for the Solicitor General, representing the US government, after arguing that letting
the CAFC have broad power to review claims for attorneys fees would encourage wasteful litigation,
faced harsh criticism from Justice Alito; he was left "wondering [...] whether there really is going to be
any meaningful review of what district courts do in this situation" if the suggestion that broad
deference should be given to district courts would be implemented.
Allcare's arguments revealed a coalition of sorts on the bench. Four justices, Breyer, Sotomayor,
and Scalia, and, to an extent, Chief Justice Roberts, took stances opposite those of Ginsburg and
Alito: their criticism of Allcare's legalistic approach to Section 285 revealed their sympathy for an
interpretation of the section as allowing broad deference to the decision of the lower courts on
attorneys fees.

Action to support argument??

Summary
In both hearings, the justices seemed dissatisfied with all of the arguments they heard; those from
the petitioners, those from the Assistants to the Solicitor General, and those from the respondents. It
appears that Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Scalia, and possibly Roberts, read Section 285 in a
way that would hurt patent trolls, while Justices Alito, Ginsburg, and Kagan did not. Justice Kennedy
did not reveal enough in his questions for me to predict how he'd rule, and Justice Thomas, as usual,
was silent. Importantly, Chief Justice Roberts recognized that the CAFC is struggling to provide a
united perspective on patent issues "they seem to have a great deal of disagreement among
themselves and are going back [and] forth in particular cases, in this area specifically." A fragmented
ruling from the Court is quite possible, when the Court releases its decision sometime in the next few
months.